About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
here has been very success phil, especially using his u.n. speech, to put iran and sanctions center stage. the question for the israelis though, which president is going to take a tougher line with iran? obviously the prime minister here feels as though a president romney would take a much tougher line in the debate. vice president biden spent a lot of time trying to assure everyone that the under an obama administration, iran would not be allowed to get a bomb but privately a number of israelis really question the resolve of the obama administration to take the steps necessary for iran or possibly a military strike. jamie? jamie: leland vittert, live in jerusalem. leland, thank you so much. bill: now the morning after how are the two campaigns playing this debate today especially after exchanges like this one? >> 7.4 million seniors are projected to lose the current medicare advantage coverage they have, that is $3200 benefit cut. >> that didn't happen. >> these are from your actuaries. >> more people signed upper for medicare advantage after the change. >> mr. vice president -- so
including u.s. ambassador to the u.n., did interview after interview connecting the attack to anger over a movie. bill: want to start with peter doocy live in washington. the why is the state department now saying the attack not spontaneous? >> reporter: because lethality and number of armed attackers is unprecedented in recent diplomatic history. plus there was no protest in front of consulate on the night of the attack. the people inside the compound heard explosions before 9:00 p.m. >> we have no information to suggest that it was a plea planned attack. -- preplanned attack. it is not reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of. >> in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. >> reporter: we know the administration did internally classify as a terrorist attack within 24 hours. we expect to hear a lot more three hours from now in a house oversight committee hearing just across the street that is being billed simply as the security failures of benghazi. bill. bill: i'm looking at four witnesses. any heads up what they will say, peter? >> we heard a little bit from two of
. there is no question as senor corker said, at least by the momp ambassador,oric me ambassador to the u.n. everyone ew it wasn't true. that becomes the real question of why in the wld would an ambassador make a statement that was n supported en a few hos after thett rt spo fiayfter the attack. bill: you have three principle players here, you have susan rice, hillary clinton and the president, right? are you suggesting that any of these individuals, or all of them, lied about this? wl, ct w gng go f ssori rice' false statement. you have to understand something. the ason i called my committee back during the time when most members are home campaigning is because i thought it was so ri, usire that weet the refmbassies and consulates around the world and if this has been repeated even once, and i don't act quickly, then i failed to meet my obligation. if they need more resources, i need to make sure they ask for themnd tm. a ptefalngs told, effectively, don't even ask for more resources because we won't support that. you'll see that today in the hearingment. bill: if you believe you were misled and there
days after that briefing, u.s. ambassador to the u.n. susan rice took to five different sunday talk shows to say it was not a planned attack. it was another three days after that, before any senior u.s. official publicly stated that the benghazi incident was indeed a terrorist attack. >> americans deserve the truth on what happened. and so i think what you're going to find is these bits and pieces are going to come out. again i think we're both troubled by some of the things we saw and unfold. >> reporter: the house oversight committee hearing on the benghazi attacks gets underway tomorrow at noon. a lot of people will be watching, martha. martha: there is sort of a drip, drip, drip effect to this story. and some lawmakers are still questioning what the administration itself knew before these attacks. >> reporter: you know congressman jason chaffetz of utah just returned from benghazi. early this morning on fox he pointed out some obvious warning signs that preceded the attack. >> twice in the lead-up to their attack on 9/11, our compound in benghazi was bombed. twice the british am
. >> eight days later. a u.n. ambassador who has no responsibility for embassies, intelligence, security at embassies, she was saying spontaneous, a demonstration that got out of hand. where did they come up with these things when everybody's country gut reaction was gee, it is september 11th. it is terror. bill: this is october 10 on the calendar. >> a month later. bill: 26 days away from an election. how many of these questions will be answered in that time, any? >> i that you don't know but i do think there will be a huge paper trail of these things. the government doesn't do anything one-on-one. they do it of course, everybody get as blind carbon copy or everybody get as carbon copy of tease e-mails. i think you will see more and more people come forward. because look, americans die. why did they die? was it a political decision? was it just criminal negligence? i don't think this is something that fell between the cracks, gee they weren't weren't focusing on security on a most dangerous part of the world on a date on an anniversary that everyone in the world knows about. bill: thank
told a different story. we have a special ambassador to the u.n. thank you for joining us. we had venezuela citizens tweeting exit polls showing that the challenger actually won by several percentage points. is there any recourse here? >> there are elections coming up at the govern ship level and really reveal and be a referendum on what i see is a decline in chavez popularity. in terms of recourse it will be very challenging to overturn the election results. you have a highly technical election process. it's clear with chavez controlling the air wave, the election commission and pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the provinces before the elections that it amounts to what i think would be at least a 5-point differential if this were a truly transparent and free election. patti ann: yeah, fenn there are no irregularities found at the poll as you say, they say chavez used state-controlled media to influence public opinion. he gave away pensions and houses essentially buying votes. is it even in pricing that chavez won by a much smaller margin than in the past? >> it is ver
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)